Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brad Pitt/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 14:47, 9 June 2009 [1].

Brad Pitt[edit]

Nominator(s): --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

The article has been brought to Good article status and two peer review processes. I look forward to any feedback that arises out of this process. Note: Reference 80 is not a dead link. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Quick observations at a glance. No page number for reference 43. Ref 37 needs more details - is it the film, a documentary, sleeve notes, etc? Ref 58 - no author listed, but page 3 of the link gives several names. Some links in the references have the word 'review' added to the title, yet ref 78 and 80, both reviews, do not. Ref 81 - no author. Ref 125 - no author. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took the source from the Fight Club film article. Also, I've replaced Ref. 37, added an author for Ref. 58. The 'review' thing is not mentioned in the titles to both refs. 78 and 80, and the rest do have the word 'review'. I also added authors for refs. 81 and 125. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the title of ref 78 is "Movie Review - The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford - Good, Bad or Ugly: A Legend Shrouded in Gunsmoke Remains Hazy - NYTimes.com". I see you're using the title of the page rather than each article. You may want to check the consistency of that format. I appreciate this instance is however a long title. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by TonyTheTiger
Leaning toward Oppose Support-All issues resolved.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since he is a Golden Globe Award winner, his infobox should have one of those Awards dropdown features like many other actors.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The awards field in the infobox was recently removed after discussion at WP:ACTOR. Bradley0110 (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to that discussion. I would like to see how it applies in this case.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See here. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there no PD images of Jennifer and Brad?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this intentionally organized topically as opposed to chronologically. I find all kinds of personal relationship info at the end although chronologically it should appear earlier.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many biographies are strictly chronological. This one is arranged by topic and chronological within the topics. Is this intentional? I am just asking you to reconsider the organization. E.g., would you want to talk about a relationship with Juliette Lewis at the time you are discussing his movie appearances with her or do you want to discuss them in separate places. Either way is O.K. by me, but it is something to think about. Also, much has been made of the Mr. & Mrs. Smith movie as it relates to the Aniston breakup.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, okay I totally get what you mean now. No, its not intentional. I've seen some articles that way. When I first began working on the article, I just wanted to expand the article, and not make dramatic changes. Hence, why the article is that way. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you say, "The film was met with a mixed reception by critics," you should probably precede it by Although Pitts' performance was acclaimed,--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The quote mentions both Pitt and Jolie. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I am talking about an earlier film than you. I am talking about Legends.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, I thought you were referring to Mr. & Mrs. Smith, Sorry. Anyways, I added "The film was met with a mixed reception by critics,[6] but many critics enjoyed Pitt's performance." --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would mention Paltrow in the Seven section. I think they were dating at the time.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • They were dating, but I don't see how mentioning Paltrow in his film career section is important. This properly fits in his PL section. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert "Mixed reviews were given for the film." to active voice.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When describing his star power, I have never heard of Empire. However, you neglect to mention him as a GQ man of the year, which I believe he once was.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect to the Paltrow relationship. There is some famous story of her buying him a rolex or something. Have you seen that in the press?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think its necessary to include that. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here is my point. First, we are trying to summarize secondary sources. I believe this story is out there in several of them because I have heard it and I am not a Hollywood insider. Second, he has had numerous Hollywood "relationships". "much-publicized romance and engagement" gives a complete summary of the relationship, but this story offers us a chance to add depth to the Paltrow section of his personal life. In fact, it gives us a chance to give this relationship its own paragraph if you want to go in that direction. I would try to conjure up a separate paragraph for that relationship in his life bio. So this story gives such a paragraph breadth and depth.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • To be honest, I would rather say that they shared an apartment during their relationship, then to include that Paltrow bought him an expensive Rolex watch. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think if you use both you have the makings of a substantive distinct paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • You have not made any changes in this regard and have made no further commentary. What is your current thought on the matter.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I will not add the watch info. Its pointless to include. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I am considering opposing for this reason. In general, birthday presents from former girlfriends (live-in or not) are meaningless in the context of the life picture of someone who has subsequently been married (and subsequently united, if that is the proper word). In that context it is pointless. However, given that this is an encyclopedia of summarized public sources, we should realize that almost anyone who pays attention to Hollywood in general or Brad and/or Gwyneth in particular knows the story. Thus, we have a well known story about Brad that is likely well-documented in the public press that we are omitting for some reason. You have not given me a reason other than your opinion that it is pointless to you personally. It is not pointless to the annals of Hollywood where it is documented and our responsibility is to summarize the public annals. We are not here to judge what parts are meaningless to us personally. There are very few known birthday presents of boyfriend/girlfriends that are as storied as this one. Thus, I think you are omitting general knowledge that should be included. There are some celebrities for whom a drunken escaped, a DUI (Mel Gibson), bong hit (Michael Phelps) or some other meaningless incident is essential to the complete breadth and scope of a biography. In this case, you have an unusually important gift exchange between boyfriend and girlfriend.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Well, you are entitled to your own opinion. But, when it comes to trying to tell me off, I too am entitled to say something. The fact of the watch does not warrant to be included because it's very trivial. Might want to look into it. If this was "widely reported" why isn't it included in Gwyneth Paltrow's article? Yes, she might have given him the watch, but it was "widely reported", according to you. I don't see these gifts belonging in an encyclopedia article. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I am not trying to tell you off. I am explaining my current position in terms of an editorial review of this article. Gwyneth's article is not even a GA so we do not have any breadth requirement that the article was reviewed for. When I say widely reported, I mean I person who is not a hollywood insider knows about the story. I am not Brad's best friend or Gwyneth's confidant. I am a guy who heard the story in the press. I am not a groupie of either party who gobbles up every bit of gossip about either. It is the most significant gift exchange that I know of in all of the Hollywood stories I have ever heard. On that basis I am leaning toward Oppose. However, I am unable to find a reference as easily as I thought. Now, I found one that says I have the facts wrong.[3] O.K., I'll let it slide.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pitt has had an audience with Obama. Was he a financial supporter of the campaign?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did he do any activism for Obama like he did for Kerry?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please review the "publisher" fields in the references; many refer to the owner, rather than the publisher (e.g. The Guardian is published by Guardian News & Media, which is owned by the Guardian Media Group, and guardian.co.uk is just the website, not the publisher). Bradley0110 (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC

I removed guardian.co.uk from the refs. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning to support: A very informative and generally well-written article. With over 10,000 hits a day on average it is very high profile, and needs all its wrinkles ironed out. Personally, I favour the internal organisation of the article away from strict chronology; it helps us to assess Pitt's professional career better when the private life distractions are left until later. One thing I might do, however, is make it clear that Pitt and Aniston were married at the time of his guest appearance on Friends.
    • What specifically would you like me to say? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've fixed it, see if you like it. You may need to add a ref if the existing one doesn't mention that they were married. Brianboulton (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks and its fine. Oh, no need, the source covers that they were married in his appearance on the show. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In many ways the form of the article resembles that of the recently promoted Kirsten Dunst, though I think this is probably the better article. One fault I found when reviewing the Dunst article is to an extent repeated here – a tendency to over-rely on verbatim quotations, of which there are a couple of dozen or more in the Pitt article. I recommend trying to reduce these with some appropriate paraphrasing.
I'll try to work on those. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Would this work ---> "Variety wrote that Pitt's take on Louis is handsome and personable, but added that "there is no depth to his melancholy, no pungency to his sense of loss". In conclusion, Variety reiterated that Pitt does not seem to connect in a meaningful way with any of the actors in the film" [4] for the review for Interview with the Vampire? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that sort of thing would work well. Brianboulton (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I added that to the Critical success section. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise I have a number of minor issues that should be resolved quite easily:-
  • "The following year he appeared in two contrasting, critically acclaimed starring roles, in the crime thriller Seven (1995) and the science fiction film Twelve Monkeys (1995), for which he won a Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actor and earned an Academy Award nomination." First, it was his performances, rather than the roles themselves, that were critically acclaimed, and you need to clarify which of the two roles won him a Golden Globe award and an Oscar nomination. Suggestion: "The following year he gave critically acclaimed performances in two starring roles; in the crime thriller Seven (1995), and in the science fiction film Twelve Monkeys (1995), the latter winning him a Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actor and earning him an Academy Award nomination."
    • Done.
    • "Since his relationship with Jolie..." makes it sound as if it's over. Perhaps "Since beginning his relationship with Jolie..."
      • Done.
  • Early life section
    • "In a review for the film, Entertainment Weekly, wrote: "Pitt is a magnificent slimeball..." Entertaimnent Weekly didn't write anything, its reviewer did, so suggest rephrase: Entertainment Weekly's film reviewer wrote: "Pitt is a magnificent slimeball..." etc
      • Done.
    • Wikilinks within quotes should be avoided, per WP:BTW
      • Done.
  • 1999–2003
    • "The character [in Fight Club] is a straight-shooting and charismatic mastermind who runs an underground fight club." Whose desciption of the character is this?
      • The book.
        • You need to cite the page of the book where this description occurs. Brianboulton (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, actually it was the description that was "summarized" to add to the character. But, I added a book source and online source. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You say Fight Club received "polarized" reactions. From the source, the reviews don't seem at all "polarized", i.e. at two extremes. The source shows a range of review reactions, but heavily slanted towards favourable. Even the old standby of "mixed reviews" seems inappropriate.
      • I'm very lost on this one.
        • I've changed "polarized reactions" into "a variety of reactions", which is accurate. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2004–present
    • "...the film is the most commercially successful of his career." This needs a date qualification – it may not always be his gratest commercial success
      • Done.
  • Other projects
    • "Aniston and Grey are no longer partners." Well, we need to be told first that they were partners before being told that they are no longer. This could be done by fixing the previous sentence: "Pitt, along with Jennifer Aniston and her partner, Paramount Pictures CEO Brad Grey, founded the film production company Plan B Entertainment in 2002."
      • Done.
    • I'm not sure that it's a good idea discussing film projects and humanitarian projects under an undifferentiated "Other projects" heading. I would suggest that this section be divided into two subsections: "Film projects" and "Humanitarian projects" (or similar titles)
      • The thing is that the article is 86 kilobytes long. I don't want to make the article much larger than what it is.
        • I'm not suggesting you should add more text, merely that the first two paragraphs of this section could be subheaded "Film and television work" and the remaining paragraphs subheaded "Humanitarian causes" or some such. This would highlight Pitt's commitment to humanitarian causes in the article's list of contents. If you're not comfortable with this suggestion, ignore it – it's not a sticking point for me. Brianboulton (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I did a test, it works. I'll do it. Since you agree about adding the architecture info. to the Make It Right, would this ---> "Pitt also has a knowledgeable interest in architecture, that in 2006, he created the Make It Right Foundation, in which he gathered a group of housing professionals in New Orleans, which was heavily affected by Hurricane Katrina"? Would something like that work? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, I've tweaked it a bit and come up with "Pitt has a knowledgeable interest in architecture,[ref] which he used to good effect in 2006 when he created the Make It Right Foundation. For this project he gathered a group of housing professionals in New Orleans, which had been heavily affected by Hurricane Katrina, with the object of financing and constructing 150 new houses in New Orleans' Ninth Ward.[ref]" I think that works well. Brianboulton (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I was close enough and check from my part. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I've tweaked it a bit more, as on reflection my proposed version seemed a bit wordy, but it looks fine now. Brianboulton (talk) 08:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personal life
    • "In the late 1980s and the 1990s, Pitt was involved in relationships with several of his co-stars..." You had better qualify this as "a series of relationships", otherwise Brad might get cross.
      • Done.
    • "a knowledgeable fan of architecture" – whose description? It's a pretty dumb-down phrase, so if someone said it, it should be in quotes and specifically attributed. Otherwise it should be rephrased, e.g. "He also has a knowledgeable interest in architecture."
      • I was thinking of adding this to the Other projects section, with the "Make It Right Foundation", since it does involve Pitt working in architecture, but I wasn't sure if it would flow well.
        • I think you're right – the mention of his interest in architecture would be better in the context of the "Make It Right Foundation". Brianboulton (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Children
    • "The couple sold the first pictures of Shiloh through the distributor Getty Images themselves, rather than allowing paparazzi to make these valuable photographs." The second part of the sentence reads as an editorial opinion. I would end the sentence after "Getty Images"
      • Done.

After your responses to the issues I will be pleased to change to full support. Brianboulton (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on the quotes. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please ping my talkpage when you have have worked on the quotes to your satisfaction and I'll look again. Brianboulton (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be sure to do that. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just thought I'd drop this in after reading the conversation above. I note that "polarized reactions" has been changed to the more wishy-washy "a variety of reactions", based on the Metacritic source. For a variety of boring reasons I won't go into here, the Film Wikiproject considers sites such as Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes less reliable when aggregating scores for slightly older films such as this one. The film did indeed polarise critics at the time, but neither of these two sites reflects that. A pair of different sources could be used. After the film's appearance at the Venice International Film Festival, The Ottawa Citizen reported of Fight Club that "Many loved and hated it in equal measure". (Gritten, David (September 14, 1999). "Premiere of Fight Club leaves critics slugging it out in Venice". The Ottawa Citizen. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)). I think this could be used to support the "polarized reaction" assertion. The Citizen piece goes on to say that concerns were expressed that the film would incite copycat behavior akin to that which greeted A Clockwork Orange's debut in Britain. The Australian picked up this theme (Goodwin, Christopher (September 24, 1999). "The beaten generation". The Australian. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)) in an article that cites filmmakers' calling Fight Club "an accurate portrayal of men in the 1990s", contrasting with some critics who called it "irresponsible and appalling". It goes on to say, "After only one screening in Venice, Fight Club is shaping up to be the most contentious mainstream Hollywood meditation on violence since Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange." Some, none or all of this may be useful; I leave it here for your reference only. All the best, Steve T • C 07:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My suggested change to the wishy-washy "variety" was in accordance with the provided source. It's fine by me, if there are reliable sources that supports "polarizing", to change it back. Brianboulton (talk) 08:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, didn't mean that to sound like an insult. What I meant was that using the phrase "a variety of" seemed to me to be no different to saying "The film received some reviews." All the best, Steve T • C 08:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No offence taken, your point is good. Let ThinkBlue decide what to do. Brianboulton (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I would much rather re-add "polarize", since the film article does have the term used. Also, I would use the sources that Steve has provided above. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Alright, after much thought, I've re-added "polarize" to the Fight Club paragraph. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I copyedited some of this article before it was nominated for Featured Article status, but I see that any other tweaks it needed have been ironed out, with only maybe a few needed tweaks left. You guys have been doing an excellent job on further improving this article, and it really reads well. I cannot see at all why it should not be promoted to Featured Article status. I am also in agreement with ThinkBlue about the chronological order of sections (mixed in with personal life) suggestion. I do have to suggest, though, that we do not literally state things such as "Entertainment Weekly's film reviewer wrote...," LOL. I mean, Entertainment Weekly has a lot of film reviewers. If we are not going to say a magazine said this or that, then we should name the reviewer's name. However, sometimes with reports such as from the Associated Press, there actually is not an author of the article you can name, and it may be best to say "the Associated Press said..." or "the Associated Press reported..." Flyer22 (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, sometimes someone reviews something, but there's no name; Ex: Seven review was written by a staff member. Also, in regards of not including the reviewers name, I've been told that there's no need to add the reviewer, unless he or she is particularly a notable author. (Ex: Roger Ebert Chicago Sun-Times, Peter Travers of Rolling Stone, Janet Maslin of New York Times, Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly, etc.) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know where you've been told that, but the reviewer does not require independent notability to be named. In cases where the author of an independent opinion piece (e.g. a film review) is specified, he or she should be named. Only when appearing in a journal or newspaper's official editorial might it be appropriate to omit the author information from the article text. Steve T • C 22:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • User:EnemyOfTheState told me that. He has it modeled that way in Angelina Jolie's article, which is a Featured article. I mean, I have no problem re-adding the reviewers name in the article, is just that there's one that might cause a fuzz; the Seven review doesn't say who wrote the article, just that it's by a "staff member". --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I suggested to only include notable reviewers, because I think mentioning the names of unknown film critics has no relevance for the article's subject, plus it offers no information or useful insight for the reader. To me, its only function is to increase the word count of the text. I think it's clear that film reviews are usually not written in an editorial fashion, therefore if only the publication is named in text that clearly isn't meant to represents the opinion of the entire staff. EnemyOfTheState|talk 12:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: no issues with the images, they are verifiably licensed or in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Inconsistencies between "Early work" section and "Filmography":

  • In the latter, you list some of his television work but not all of the shows mentioned in "Early work" (including 21 Jump Street, Head of the Class, and Growing Pains). Either list all of his TV work in "Filmography" or create a separate chart for it. In the "Filmography", you give the name of the Friends episode he appears in; that's not necessary for the other TV series, but do list how many episodes of each he appeared in.
    • There's no need to create another chart, the filmography is plenty. See Kirsten Dunst as an example. I think you listed all his TV work with "TV work". The Friends episode earned him an Emmy nomination, I think it warrants to stay. If you want, I'll list the names of the episodes, that's if I can find the names of them. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're missing the point. The "Fimography" appears to show all of his TV work. It does not. There are many ways to deal with it, but leaving it as is is unacceptable. So...(1) You can include all of his TV work. (2) You can create a different chart exclusively devoted to his TV work, which includes all of it. (3) You can retitle this chart "Films and selected TV work".DocKino (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Early work", you say "in 1988, he made his feature film debut in the drama The Dark Side of the Sun." The "Filmography" lists four feature film appearances in 1987.
    • The other films were minor roles, uncompared to a starring role in the 1988 film. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, what does "uncompared" mean? You have retained the error. This is unacceptable. The main text of the article should indicate that he had several minor movie roles in 1987, and that his first significant film role was in The Dark Side of the Sun. That movie does not represent his "feature film debut."DocKino (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dismiss what I said, I was in a bit of a hurry. I added the films before The Dark Side of the Sun. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Early work", you say "in 1988, he made his feature film debut in the drama The Dark Side of the Sun." (Déjà vu!) The "Filmography" lists it as a 1997 film.
    • The film was released years later. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then you need to indicate that in the text. You can't identify it as a 1988 film in the text and as a 1997 film in the "Filmography" and leave it at that. That sort of discrepancy is unacceptable. You need to say in the text that the film was completed in 1988, but not released until nine years later--or whatever will clarify matters for the reader.DocKino (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the "FIlmography", if he appeared in six episodes of Glory Days, surely you can find out the name of his character somewhere.DocKino (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally Support. I did some work on this article during the peer reviews. Some minor issues:
    • Paragraphs were changed since the article's peer review. Paragraph two (about his tv work) and three (about his first film work) in the career section were combined, while the text on Fight Club was split into two paragraphs. The original formating made much more sense to me.
    • Successive paragraphs starting with "In [year], Pitt ..." don't look like "brilliant prose" to me, they should be avoided I think.
    • It's probably better to call Troy his 'highest grossing film', not his 'most commercially successful' - with a considerably smaller budget, Mr. & Mrs. Smith made a higher net profit than Troy.
    • Was Brad Grey really only Jennifer Aniston's partner? The source doesn't support that. Why not just "along with Jennifer Aniston and Paramount Pictures CEO Brad Grey, ..."?
    • His appearances on the Time 100 in 2009 and the Forbes Celebrity 100 in 2008 should be updated.
    • Regarding the discussion above how to expand on his relationship with Paltrow, I think the most interesting fact missing is for how long they were actually engaged.
    • I still think the succession boxes are unnecessary. However, if other people feel they are useful, that's fine with me.

EnemyOfTheState|talk 12:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the lead section, it is fine to bend the chronology a bit to mention the Ocean's sequels right after Ocean's Eleven, but what is the rationale of having a chronological structure and then totally breaking it at the end of the paragraph, by unnecessarily putting Benjamin Button (2008) before Troy (2004) and Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005)? It makes for a sloppy read.DocKino (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments : I really like this article. I think you've discussed his film career without congratulating him, and you've discussed the hoopla surrounding his personal life without becoming part of the circus. The tone and balance throughout the article are just right, it flows very well in most parts, and I wish there were more articles like this. Some minor comments:

  • Agree with User:DocKino's comment above, regarding the placement of Benjamin Button before Troy" and "The Smiths. It is awkward.
  • "with late renowned acting coach Roy London." - using "late" is a problem. It means checking the article constantly over the next 50 years and adding "the late" as people die.  ;-) Is it important that London was "renowned" - by this I mean is it a reflection on Pitt that as a newcomer someone notable saw his potential? Or is a comment about London himself. If the point relates to Pitt, that's fine, but otherwise London's renown should be left for his own article. I'm not sure what is intended here.
  • "His love scene with Davis, which showed Pitt shirtless and wearing a cowboy hat, has been often cited as the moment that defined Pitt as a sex symbol.[1]" - I think it's true that this scene is "often cited" as a milestone in Pitt's career, but the source doesn't seem to support the "often". Is it necessary to say it is often cited, when other roles are described with the milder "has been described as". It's hard to quantify, and is it even necessary? Maybe just "has been cited" - and with a more compelling source, would be better.
  • "Variety wrote that Pitt's take on Louis is handsome and personable..." - this doesn't read as paraphrasing because it says they wrote, and "handsome and personable" are too specific. I think it would be better to just quote Variety rather than break their comment into three seperate pieces. Saying "in conclusion" suggests Variety discussed Pitt at some length and that we're condensing it, but that's not the case. This paragraph could and should be simplified to more accurately portray what Variety wrote or it could supplemented by comments from a second review to give it depth. It looks a little like padding, as it currently reads, especially when comparing it to the source website.
  • "but many critics enjoyed Pitt's performance." - it then goes on to quote from two of them. "Many" is a problem. Maybe something like "The film was met with a mixed reception by critics,[25] but Pitt received some positive reviews" (or something)
  • "Pitt garnered his first Golden Globe Award nomination in the category for Best Actor,[28] but lost to Tom Hanks for Forrest Gump." I have a bit of a problem with people "losing" awards. They don't lose the award, they just don't win them. You could almost read between the lines as saying Pitt was robbed, you know. It's the only nomination where the winner is spotlighted. There's no real connection between Hanks and Pitt, so it's not completely relevant.
  • "In the 1999 film Fight Club, Pitt portrayed Tyler Durden. The character is a straight-shooting and charismatic mastermind who runs an underground fight club." A bit awkward and stilted. How about : "In the 1999 film Fight Club, Pitt portrayed Tyler Durden, a straight-shooting and charismatic mastermind who runs an underground fight club."  ?
  • "Pitt's character, an Irish Gypsy boxer, speaks in a barely intelligible accent. Pitt's delivery of the accent drew criticism and praise." Two short sentences spoil the flow, and this could be one sentence. Maybe "Pitt's performance as a Irish Gypsy boxer, and his delivery of a barely intelligible Irish accent, drew criticism and praise."
  • "Stephen Hunter of The Washington Times commented that in a role that requires larger-than-life dimensions, noted that he is pretty terrific." Grammatically, the sentence is wrong and needs to be rewritten. If this is a quote it needs to be cited a quote, within quotation marks, otherwise it looks like Wikipedia paraphrasing Stephen Hunter. "Pretty terrific" is OK for a reviewer, but it's doesn't look good if it appears like we're saying it.
  • " Pitt has been reluctant to discuss the production company in interviews.[96]" This begs the question "why?" This is quite enigmatic and could suggest something more than is there. Certainly the interview used to source this, gives no clue. If it's relevant enough to mention, it needs to be clarified. If not, it's not relevant. (and I tend to think it's the latter)
    • If you read the source, and I quote, "Take his production company, Plan B. Much of the publicity surrounding it has had to do with Pitt's split with Jennifer Aniston, former principal Brad Grey's divestment when he moved to Paramount as chair-CEO and the company's shift from Warner Bros. to the Paramount lot. [...] Pitt hasn't granted many interviews about Plan B, especially since a tumultuous 2005. That year saw Grey (longtime chairman of Pitt's management company, Brillstein-Grey) take the Paramount job, Pitt and Aniston split, 'Mr. & Mrs. Smith' usher in Brangelina tabloid fever, and the company get dragged into the fallout generated by James Frey's controversial megaseller 'A Million Little Pieces', for which Plan B owns the films rights",[5] it reasons why he doesn't discuss Plan B. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, my mistake. The source gives a lot of information but it also speculates. Going back to the article it reads "Pitt was credited onscreen as a producer. However, only Graham King was ruled eligible for the Oscar win.[99] Pitt has been reluctant to discuss the production company in interviews.[96]" The first thing I thought when I read that was that he has a conflict or ill-feeling with Graham King over the Oscar thing, because the two points are presented together. The way it's written in the article, unless it directly connects to King, it's a random fact that reads as being connected to the preceding sentence. I think it's fair to refer to an external link to find out more about a statement made in an article, but for me, the paragraph is unclear and to make sense of it, I have to read through the source material. It needs to be presented with enough context and clarity to give a basic understanding, and reading further into the source material should be optional. "Due to..... whatever reasons..... Pitt is reluctant to discuss the company" Sorry, but the whole paragraph isn't very clear. Maybe it's just me. I'll read it again tomorrow with a clearer head. Rossrs (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mixed reviews" or "mixed reception" are somewhat overused. At least some of them need to be replaced if for nothing more than to make the writing more varied and engaging. I'm not sure what some suitable alternative would be, maybe variations like "critics were divided in the comments" or something similar, but the repetition of these two terms within the space of a few paragraphs, is problematic. Rossrs (talk) 09:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Support Thoroughly informative and truly well written . I think it fulfils all the featured article criteria and shall be made a FA.

Princeaditya (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Fails 1a, in ways that also make its 1b case weak. There are glaring problems with the prose. A selection garnered from an examination of just the first 20% of the article (and a comparison of its content with the "Filmography"):

  • The central paragraph of the lead establishes a chronological structure, then insensibly breaks it at the very end.
  • In "Early work", we find a description of Pitt's film appearances in uncredited parts. The very next sentence informs us that he "began his acting career" afterward.
  • No Man's Land and Less Than Zero are mentioned, but not the film in which Pitt actually made his onscreen debut: No Way Out.
  • His featured role on Dallas is described. Subsequently, we are told, "Later in 1988, he acted in his first featured role in the drama The Dark Side of the Sun." (Yes, one's a featured role on TV, the other in a motion picture. FA-quality writing handles that switch. This doesn't.)
  • Three sentences are devoted to Dark Side of the Sun, which was not released until 1997. But the first film in which Pitt played a featured role to actually be released, Cutting Class, is not mentioned at all.
  • In back-to-back sentences we find grammatical error--"His portrayal of the character has been described a 'career-making' performance"--and writing of obviously low quality--"In discussion of the film, Pitt admitted he felt a 'bit of pressure' when making the film."
  • We have a section called "Filmography" that includes some but not all of the actor's television work. It includes The Image, which is not mentioned in the main text, but not 21 Jump Street, Head of the Class, and Growing Pains, which are.
  • Cutting Class is listed as a 1987 film in the "Filmography". That's a significant error, as it was the first film with Pitt in a featured role to be released. It's a 1989 film. DocKino (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In December 1987, Pitt starred in television guest appearances, which included a role on the CBS primetime soap opera Dallas." Oh, so he made other television guest appearances in December 1987? What were they? And did he really "star" in them?
  • "Following this, Pitt appeared in an episode of the police drama 21 Jump Street in 1988, with additional appearances on the situation comedies Head of the Class and Growing Pains the next year." Run-on. Ungrammatical. Opens with unnecessary phrase.
  • As noted above, text indicates that he first appeared on Growing Pains in 1989. But the first of the two episodes of that series named in the "Filmography" actually aired in 1987. November 1987, in fact, before we were led to believe he made his television debut on Dallas.
  • "The movie was later released in 1997." See the problem?
  • Cutting Class has been added. Good. Now, can you explain why three times as much space is devoted to The Dark Side of The Sun, a film no one saw for nine years? Do you think the balance here is appropriate?
  • "In this same year, he appeared in a supporting role in the HBO television movie The Image (1990)." See the problem?
  • "Soon after the film, Pitt attracted broader public attention with a supporting role in the 1991 road film Thelma & Louise." "Soon after the film"? How about "Pitt soon attracted..." DocKino (talk) 00:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've copyedited the subsection to address the couple of issues raised above that remained unresolved and a couple of additional ones. I trimmed a bit of the detail about the fate Dark Side of the Sun--that detail's not too significant in the context of an article about Pitt. I also added the mention of a couple early TV guest appearances (steered to them by, yes lord help me, IMDb). If you see no problem with them, we can add them to the Filmography. I also changed the number of Dallas episodes to four; it didn't appear as if you had a source for the claim of five episodes. If you have reason to believe it is five, let's try to nail this down with good sourcing.

An issue with images: I believe I understand the thinking behind it, but I'm afraid it doesn't look too professional to have an image related to 1995 and 2000 (which I see is from 2007) in a section that covers 1987-93 and an image identified as from 2001 in a section that covers 1994–98. If nothing else, at least the captions should be changed. DocKino (talk) 04:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made the change. He appeared in five episodes. [6]. I see nothing wrong with the images. If the images are there, I don't see how they shouldn't be there. Why should the captions be changed? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a fair amount of WP:V-standard sourcing for four episodes. Here's a few:
  • Scotland on Sunday
  • Daily Record
  • Movie City News
  • Dallas Morning News (though it is the "MetroBlog")
  • My sense is that the right number probably is four; of course, you could rephrase the text to say "several" episodes.
  • The first source listed above, the Scotland on Sunday article/interview is very interesting--it may have some material that could be useful to you.
  • You "see nothing wrong with the images"? Let me try once again. The article has a chronological structure. In the section that covers 1987–93, the image relates to 1995/2000. In the section that covers 1994–98, the image relates to 2001. If you truly see nothing wrong with that, I'm not surprised that the article continues to fail 1a. DocKino (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • People magazine is a more reliable source. Also, I've fixed the image settings. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, for sure, People magazine is a very reliable source. However, your source is not People magazine. It's a "Celebrity Central" timeline on People.com. According to our policy, that's a less reliable source (electronic media) than an article that was published in the print edition of Scotland's leading Sunday newspaper (mainstream newspaper). In addition, you have offered one source; I have offered three (or four, if we accept the Dallas Morning News blog).
        • Well, they are very reliable when it comes to their information. Also, I made the change. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • In terms of the images, now the image that relates to 1995/2000 is in the subsection that covers 2004–present; furthermore, it appears after two images that relate to 2001. Bizarre. Suggestion: Retitle the "Critical success" subsection "1994–1998", which brings it into line with the chronological titling of the other "Career" subsections. Then move the 1995/2000 image into the newly renamed "1994–1998" subsection. Problem resolved.
        • No, I will not change the "Critical success" title to "1994-1998". He earned Critical success with Interview with the Vampire, along with the other film's mentioned, thus it warrants the title there. It was your suggestion to move the images that didn't correspond within the year. I did exactly that. Now, the two images from the 1999–2003 section indeed correspond there, since they are from 2001. But, now because of this change, I've removed the image from there. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Truly bizarre. Here is the Variety review of Interview with the Vampire excerpted in the article: "Brad Pitt's Louis is handsome and personable, but there is no depth to his melancholy, no pungency to his sense of loss. He also doesn't seem to connect in a meaningful way with any of the other actors". Is that what you mean when you say he "earned Critical success" with the film?
          • Also, exactly how do you imagine that I'd support moving an image that relates to 1995/2000 from a section that covers 1987–93 to a section that covers 2004–present? Why do you insist on placing the image in a section to which it does not chronologically relate? Look, you've got a section, whatever you want to call it, that covers the period 1994–98. With the caption "Pitt was named Sexiest Man Alive by People in 1995 and 2000", the image in question relates to that period. Why exactly will you not move it to that section? DocKino (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, on the article's 1a problems, I have pointed out twice the issue with the lead section's central paragraph, in which the chronology is needlessly broken by placing Benjamin Button before Troy and Mr. & Mrs. Smith. I attempted to correct this once directly, and you reverted. Rossrs, above, has concurred with my view. You have never explained your resistance to this change. What's the problem here? DocKino (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has DocKino been asked to return to the article? I am having trouble determining whether his objection has been satisfied. Karanacs (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, he has not. But, I've gotten his concerns. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the nominator has not "gotten my concerns". Prose quality (1a) is an issue throughout the article. Aside from tortuously dealing with the many issues that I specifically noted were merely from the article's first fifth, no effort has been made on the rest since my objection. (And even in that first fifth, we are left with a subsection, "Critical success," [1] whose title breaks the chronological rationale employed for the surrounding subsection titles and [2] that begins with the discussion of a performance that was critically panned.) The article needs a tip-to-toe copyedit, and it clearly needs it from someone whom the nominator is more comfortable working with than he is with me. I believe the article is within striking range of meeting the standard, but the nominator does need to enlist a good copyeditor to deal with things throughout such as:
  • "The film failed to meet expectations at the box office, and received polarized reactions from film critics." (Nonidiomatic: critical "reactions" aren't "received".)
  • They're not?
  • "The film was well-received by critics and a prominent success at the box office". (Nonidiomatic: "prominent success".)
  • Fixed.
  • "The movie earned $478 million worldwide, one of the biggest hits of 2005." (Ungrammatical.)
  • Fixed.
  • "In total, the film garnered seven Academy Award, as well as seven Golden Globe Award nominations." (Confusing. Poor construction gives appearance of grammatical error.)
  • Fixed.
And so forth. DocKino (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been copy-edited. Believe me, I wouldn't have nominated the article if someone didn't copy-edit the article. Also, I'd like to point out that I am not a "he", but a she. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wobbly on 1a. I looked at the the lead only. This nomination has sucked in reviewing resources for 26 days. Please prepare future nominations to a higher standard before launching them; that would be fairer to other nominators and to our hard-pressed reviewers. Convince us that the rest is better than the lead:

    • Opening: "William Bradley "Brad" Pitt[1] (born December 18, 1963) is an American actor and film producer. He has been cited as one of the world's most attractive men and his off-screen life is widely reported.[2][3] Pitt has received two Academy Award nominations and has won one Golden Globe Award out of four nominations." Does the second sentence sit there logically, and in terms of its importance? Do the two ideas in the second sentence, linked by "and" combine comfortably?
      • It does have importance.
    • "Pitt starred in the 1999 cult hit Fight Club, as well as the 2001 heist film Ocean's Eleven, a major international hit, and its sequels Ocean's Twelve (2004) and Ocean's Thirteen (2007)." Chain of ands. Just two dashes might help: "Pitt starred in the 1999 cult hit Fight Club, as well as the 2001 heist film Ocean's Eleven – a major international hit – and its sequels Ocean's Twelve (2004) and Ocean's Thirteen (2007)."
  • Pitt, Pitt, Pitt (start of three successive sentences).
    • Done.
  • Remove comma after Jolie?
    • Done.
  • "Pitt owns a production company named Plan B Entertainment, which has produced, among other films, the 2007 Academy Award winner for Best Picture, The Departed." Could be ordered more neatly: "Pitt owns a production company named Plan B Entertainment, which has produced the 2007 Academy Award winner for Best Picture, The Departed, among other films." Tony (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is a hidden template in the "Children" section, it needs to be show by default. I'd change it myself, but I don't know how. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I worked on this article in the early days and it's good to see a lot that I wrote remains!! I think this article has come on leaps and bounds since passing GA noticeably in terms of the reviews of his performances which were missing as well as citations. It now looks like a featured article, a solid, well written, structured article. Maybe it could still use some minor copy editing in places to avoid short sentences but well done to the developer. This guys name seems to pop up in a huge number of articles so a featured article is excellent progress. Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • But you have not convinced anyone, as I asked, that the rest of the prose is worth it. Taking a few random spot-checks:
    • "Pitt's film career broadened after being cast as vampire Louis de Pointe du Lac"—So his career was cast as a character?
      • Re-wrote sentence.
    • Same grammatical glitch: "Reception for the movie was mixed,[38] but grossed over $165 million worldwide."—The reception grossed that amount?
      • Fixed.
    • "in order to"—spot two redundant words.
      • Where is this at?
    • "Despite the mixed reviews, Pitt's performance was favored by critics." We haven't heard about those mixed reviews yet ... why "the"?
      • Fixed.
    • he ... he ... he: "Pitt had a cameo role in George Clooney's 2002 directorial debut Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, and he appeared in an episode of MTV's Jackass, where he and several ...". Remove the second one (a technique used in the subsequent sentence).
      • Fixed.
    • What is the "present"? 2009? 2012?
      • What do you think?

Needs fine sifting to remove these infelicities. Someone new to it is needed; anyone at the TV or film WikiProjects a good copy-editor? It's not a big job, so why not finish it off.

Again, it is disturbing that professional reviewers have had to weigh in to this extent; the process is not meant to work this way. Please take note for the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I'm keeping a cool head here, and will ignore this criticism that is being given to my part. I was debating this issue as well, whether or not to nominate the article to FAC. I received several feedbacks from very generous users, as well as an excellent copy-edit from a kind user. If neither of that would have occurred, my name wouldn't show up here. But, that did happen and now I'm here. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - sorry I cannot add my support. The prose is not of FA standard; it lacks flow and is choppy and repetitive. The word "mixed" is used over and over to describe critics' reviews and Pitt always seems to be acting "alongside" someone. Redundancy remains, here for example, In total, the film garnered seven Academy Award and Golden Globe Award nominations and here Pitt stated his reasons for the stance. "Because no one has the right to deny another their life, even though they disagree with it, because everyone has the right to live the life they so desire if it doesn't harm another and because discrimination has no place in America, my vote will be for equality and against Proposition 8," he said. The dull prose becomes strikingly apparent after reading an engaging well-phrased quotation. The article needs some more work. PS. Are the Interview with the Vampire links back to front? Graham Colm Talk 14:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Brad_Pitt/archive1&oldid=1138456355"